Why I have switched from Paedo to Credo

Status
Not open for further replies.

AV1611

Puritan Board Senior
I have recently decided that the covenantal case for believer baptism is stronger than for paedobaptism. This came about after I wrote the following article:

Why Baptise Infants?

By Richard Sherratt

Article 27 of our Articles of Religion states that “The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” Because of this there will be times, I am sure, that we shall be asked by someone to give an account of this and explain why as Christians we baptize infants. I am convinced that in responding we ought to found our position squarely upon the eternal covenant of God.

The Covenant of God
It is a glorious truth indeed that our God is a covenant God. In Genesis 17:7 God declares of himself “I will establish My covenant”. This gracious covenant that God establishes is founded in eternity and realised within history. It was made with Christ and with all the elect in him and is a relation of the most blessed communion and intimate friendship between the triune God and his chosen people in Christ Jesus (Revelation 3:20; 21:3). It is this unconditional covenant, this relation of friendship, that God establishes and he does so with believers and their children. Hence God says in Genesis 17:7 that “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you”.

From the Old Testament we find that God has established his covenant with believers and their seed or, as Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Hoeksema puts it, ‘in the line of continued generations’ and that infants are included in the covenant of God. This is found in Genesis 17:7 in the phrase “I will establish My covenant between Me…and your descendants after you in their generations”. So as we look back into the Old Testament we find God’s covenant being realized in an unbroken line from Adam to Christ through Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Israel, Judah and David.1 This continues in the New Testament hence St. Peter declares in Acts 2:39 that “the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

The Covenant Sign
Whilst God has established his covenant he has also instituted a sign and seal of this covenant so that those with whom the covenant is established are marked out as being in a covenant relation with God. These signs of the covenant have two parts as our Catechism teaches. Firstly an “outward and visible sign” and secondly “an inward and spiritual grace” signified thereby. Under the old dispensation the sign and seal of the covenant was circumcision and so when God established his covenant with Abraham and his seed he commanded “Every male child among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17: 10). This sign of circumcision, we are taught in Romans 4:11, was “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised” i.e. that God justifies through faith alone. But if we look through the Scriptures we find circumcision signified much more that just this. It symbolised regeneration and confession of sin (Leviticus 26:40, 41), sanctification (Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4) and the work of God in the heart filling it with love for God (Deuteronomy 30:6). Finally circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant to be the God of believers and their seed as is taught in Genesis 17:7-14 that “it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” The covenant sign of circumcision signified a spiritual grace and was properly a sacrament.

However Christ has taken away all bloody ordinances and circumcision has been fulfilled in baptism so now under the new dispensation baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenantal sign and seal. There is a direct parallel between circumcision and baptism. Titus 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism signifies regeneration and cleansing. Romans 6:4 teaches that it symbolises sanctification and Galatians 3:27-29 teaches that baptism signifies our being in the covenant of God as circumcision once did. Further Colossians 2:11-13 offers clear proof that circumcision and baptism are essentially the same in meaning.

This teaching is taught in both the Belgic Confession of 1561 and the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563. The Belgic Confession states that

"We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, has by His shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood that one could or would make as an expiation or satisfaction for sins. He has abolished circumcision, which involved blood, and has instituted in its place the sacrament of baptism. By baptism we are received into the Church of God and set apart from all other peoples and false religions, to be entirely committed to Him whose mark and emblem we bear. This serves as a testimony to us that He will be our God and gracious Father for ever…Because baptism has the same meaning for our children as circumcision had for the people of Israel, Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ."2

The Heidelberg Catechism asks “Should infants, too, be baptized?” replying:

"Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation…Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant."3

Here we find it taught explicitly that “baptism has the same meaning for our children as circumcision had for the people of Israel” and so we safely conclude that the sign and seal of the covenant has changed from circumcision to baptism.

A Covenant People and a Covenant Sign
That God has established a covenant has been shown above as has his institution of a sign of that covenant. God has commanded that those with whom he has established his covenant are marked with the covenant sign. This can be seen in Genesis 17:7-11 “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after…Every male child among you shall be circumcised…and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” Because God establishes his covenant with believers and their seed so believers and their seed ought be marked out by the covenant sign. Therefore the argument that we maintain is that infants ought to be baptised because they are included in the covenant of God and baptism being the sign of the covenant it should be administered to infants.

The Church of England and the Covenantal Argument
The question must now be asked as to how this covenantal position fits in with the teaching of the Church of England.

1. I showed previously that the covenant sign of circumcision signified a spiritual grace and as such was a sacrament. This is taught in the homilies saying that “And so was circumcision a Sacrament, which preached unto the outward senses the inward cutting away of the foreskin of the heart, and sealed and made sure in the hearts of the Circumcised the promise of GOD touching the promised seed that they looked for.”4

2. Our liturgy and Articles teach that through baptism infants become members of the visible covenant community. In the baptismal liturgy the minister urges the congregation to pray unto God that the infant that is to be baptized will be “received into Christ's holy Church” and after baptism the minister declares “We receive this Child into the congregation of Christ's flock” and that the infant has been “grafted into the body of Christ's Church”.

3. Archbishop Cranmer linked baptism with circumcision arguing, “the baptism of infants is proved by the plain scriptures. First, by the figure of the old law, which was circumcision. Infants in the old law were circumcised; ergo, in the new law they ought to be baptized. Again: infants pertain to God, as it is said to Abraham, “I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee.””5 Notice here that Cranmer parallels baptism with circumcision and then argues along covenantal lines from Genesis 17.

We see here then that the covenantal case for infant baptism is consistent with the teaching of the Church of England.

A Final Word
I began by asking how we should respond to someone asking why we should baptise infants. My answer has been that we show them that infants are included in the covenant and baptism is the sign of the covenant and it should therefore be administered to infants. In closing there are three brief points I wish to make:
1. We baptize infants not because they have faith or because we presume them to be regenerate but rather because of the promise of God to believers that he will be their God and the God of their children.
2. Whilst God has established his covenant with believers and their seed the covenant is truly made with believers and their elect seed only as St. Paul teaches in Romans 9:6.
3. Baptism does not justify rather it acts as a visible word testifying of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It reminds us that we are, as our Catechism teaches, “by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath” and that it is only by the sovereign grace of God that we are saved.

________________

1. Hoeksema, H. (1997) Believers and their Seed, RFPA, pages 85-99
2. Belgic Confession, Article 34.
3. Heidelberg Catechism, Question 74.
4. That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue
5. Cox, J. (1846) Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Regent College Publishing pp. 60

The reason for this is thus:

The reason I began to see a need to reassess my view was that if indeed the Covenant of Grace was made with the elect alone then the covenant is made only with believers and their elect infants. Therefore accepting that elect infants are in the covenant should they be baptised? Now as far as I can work out there are two replies:

1. Yes they should be. But if this is the case then it must be pointed out that we do not actually know which of our seed, if any, are in fact elect. Therefore we would be baptising all the seed of believer's for the sake of the elect.

2. We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

In addition to 1 I would question whether we should really be placing the sign and seal upon the reprobate albeit unknowingly? Ultimately however the issue boils down to circumcision and its parallel in baptism, which I continue to affirm.

As a paedobaptist the case rested upon Genesis 17 and the idea that infants are included in the covenant. However I have come to see that the promises of that 'covenant of circumcision' can be understood as possessing both a letter and a spirit as is explained here:

"That the covenant with Abraham," says Dr. Carson, "has a letter and a spirit, is not a theory formed to serve a purpose. It is consonant to every part of the Old Dispensation, and is the only sense that can harmonize it with the New Testament. The temple was the house of God, in the letter; believers are so in the spirit. To call any house the house of God, is as much below the sense which the same phrase has when it is applied to the church of Christ, as to call the nation of Israel the people of God, is below the sense which that phrase has when applied to the spiritual Israel. Besides, there are many things spoken about the house of God in the letter, in terms that can only fully suit the spirit. "I have surely," said Solomon, "built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide forever." The incongruity of supposing him, whom ?the heaven of heavens cannot contain,? to dwell in a house forever, as a settled habitation, is removed only by referring it to the spirit." "Christ?s body is the only temple of which this is fully true. God did not dwell in the temple built by Solomon forever." That temple ceased to exist twenty five centuries ago. "But in the spirit it is accomplished, in its utmost extent." In another place, the same distinguished writer observes : -"For the accomplishment of the grand purpose that all nations should be blessed in Abraham, he had three promises. First, a numerous posterity; which was fulfilled in the letter, to the nation of Israel. It was fulfilled in the spirit, by the divine constitution that makes all believers the children of Abraham." "The second was, that he would be a God to him, and his seed; which was fulfilled in the letter, by his protection of Israel in Egypt, his delivering them from bondage," and his subsequent dealings with that nation. "This promise is fulfilled in the spirit, by God?s being a God to all believers, and to them alone, in a higher sense than he ever was to Israel" as a nation. "The third promise was of the land of Canaan; fulfilled in the letter to Israel; and in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel, in the heavenly inheritance," the possession of the Canaan above. "In accordance with this double sense of the covenant," "the typical ordinances, which exhibit the truths of the gospel in a figure, form one of the most conclusive evidences of Christianity, and present spiritual things to the mind, in so definite and striking a manner, that they add the greatest lustre to the doctrines of grace."
(source)

The Abrahamic Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace but rather it is an administration of the one eternal Covenant of Grace. Now whilst the CofG is a unifying feature of both the Old and the New Testaments I believe that it is administered in various administrations through time and with progressive redemptive clarity. Therefore administrations of the one covenant of grace can vary and whilst we do faind unity throughout the Scriptures we must be careful not to find unity where there is non and so artificially create unity.

Spurgeon in his sermon entitled CONSECRATION TO GOD—ILLUSTRATED BY ABRAHAM’S CIRCUMCISION:

It is often said that the ordinance of Baptism is analogous to the ordinance of circumcision. I will not controvert that point, although the statement may be questioned.
But supposing it to be, let me urge upon every Believer here to see to it that in his own soul he realizes the spiritual meaning both of circumcision and Baptism, and then consider the outward rites—for the thing signified is vastly more important than the sign....“Well,” says one, “a difficulty suggests itself as to your views”—for an argument is often drawn from this chapter, “that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptize all our children.” Now, observe the type and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture. In the type the seed of Abraham are circumcised.
You draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized, and I do not quibble at the conclusion. But I ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? Paul answers in Romans 9:8—“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham’s seed. Whether eight days old in Divine Grace, or more or less—every one of Abraham’s seed has a right to Baptism. But I deny that the unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by His Grace—but as yet they are “heirs of wrath, even as others.” At such time as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts, they are of Abraham’s believing seed—but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief, or are as yet incapable of faith or repentance. The answering person in type to the seed of Abraham is, by the confession of everybody, the Believer. And the Believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to prove that fact by his public Baptism in water, according to the Savior’s own precept and example.

Whilst the sign and seal of the covenant is to be administered to the seed of Abraham the seed of Abraham is Christ and the elect in him (Gal 3:16, 29 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.") and therefore only believers are to be baptised. And so the solution to the question, "accepting that elect infants are in the covenant should they be baptised?" is:

2. We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

I hope that is clear :)
 
Hello brother;

As you continue to read, you might want to consider two books:

Paul King Jewitt (sic) "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace" and the new book just out called "Believer's Baptism".

Thanks :) I have Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace and I will keep a look out for the other.
 
Good post, Richard. Obviously I agree with you. Brace yourself though.

Question: Since you have become a credo, which church will you joined now?
 
Good post, Richard. Obviously I agree with you. Brace yourself though.

Question: Since you have become a credo, which church will you joined now?

Thank you :)

I will keep going to the church I currently go to simply because it is the best church around here. However my parent's pastor is leaving and so if they get a good chap then I may go there (http://www.bethelchurch.co.uk/) but they are not at all Reformed.

This part of Cheshire is not a good place for churches plus I am unable to drive.
 
Thank you :)

I will keep going to the church I currently go to simply because it is the best church around here. However my parent's pastor is leaving and so if they get a good chap then I may go there (http://www.bethelchurch.co.uk/) but they are not at all Reformed.

This part of Cheshire is not a good place for churches plus I am unable to drive.

I did a little research to find out where Cheshire is. :book2: Near Manchester and Liverpool, in northwest England, I see. Interesting, an ancient alternative name for Cheshire is "The Vision of Britain". I wonder where that came from? Of course, there is Lewis Carroll, hence "Cheshire Cats".

I was wondering how far Manchester or Liverpool are from Cheshire and if you have a good railroad system to go to and fro.

I saw a photo of the Cheshire Cathedral. Do you happen to worship there? Beautiful countryside too. I'd be right at home there. I'd love to spend at least a year in Britain, England, Scotland, and Wales....Ireland too.
 
I did a little research to find out where Cheshire is. :book2: Near Manchester and Liverpool, in northwest England, I see. Interesting, an ancient alternative name for Cheshire is "The Vision of Britain". I wonder where that came from? Of course, there is Lewis Carroll, hence "Cheshire Cats".

I was wondering how far Manchester or Liverpool are from Cheshire and if you have a good railroad system to go to and fro.

I saw a photo of the Cheshire Cathedral. Do you happen to worship there? Beautiful countryside too. I'd be right at home there. I'd love to spend at least a year in Britain, England, Scotland, and Wales....Ireland too.

From Hartford Liverpool is around 45mins and Manchester (where I was born) is about an hour.

I have seen Chester Cathedral (I currently am working in Chester) but I worship at St. John's at the moment.
 
Thank you :)

I will keep going to the church I currently go to simply because it is the best church around here. However my parent's pastor is leaving and so if they get a good chap then I may go there (http://www.bethelchurch.co.uk/) but they are not at all Reformed.

This part of Cheshire is not a good place for churches plus I am unable to drive.
Richard, please go to a Godly Bishop before you embrace this new position. :book2:
 
Richard, please go to a Godly Bishop before you embrace this new position. :book2:

Obviously, I have a credo position, but I think Max is right...if it's something you haven't already done.

BTW, St. John is a beautiful facility. I like the style of the building. Got a bit of the High Church in me. And the church looks lively too! I sensed from the website that it is a somewhat conservative, evangelical church.
 
Last edited:
Richard, I went down a similar path as you. As I have stated before on the PB, I earnestly desired to be a WCF Reformed Prsebyterian but when it came down to it I was not complelled by the paedo arguments. This is for similar reasons as yourself.

I think it is always good advice to seek godly counsel. However, I do not agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion on PB that this is a huge deal. If I were not pastoring a church, I would have no problem attending a good Presbyterian church. (Non-PCUSA, of course) I would have no problem with my pastor baptising infants because I believe that the Presbyterians have very good reasons for doing so. I rejoice that my Presbyterian brothers and sisters go to the Word of God as their only rule for faith and practice! Thank God for the Presbyterians! Where would we be in America without them?

But if I am going to pastor or lead a church, then that church is going to have to be baptist because I could never baptize an infant myself. At some point, after much prayer and study, a young man such as yourself who has any calling to lead will have to make a decision about paedo/credo. You could literally spend the rest of your life studying the arguments of others to the exclusion of serving Him with your gifts. At some point all of us have to trust the Holy Spirit and make a decision. :judge:

I appreciate your honesty and your courage for posting your position. I pray that the Lord is preparing you for service in His Kingdom as a leader, because as the Lord knows, we need them in this world. Baptist or Presbyterian it makes no difference to me! Lord of the Harvest, send labourers! :pilgrim:
 
Funny...I have posted a few times on how I was so close to embracing the Covenant Theology position. I am not castigating C.T. at all. But I was close.
 
2. We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

I trust the great Shepherd of the sheep will lead you in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. But on the above point, not even adult converts in the NT were required to meet the stringent pre-requisites you have set for baptism.
 
I2. We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

I trust the great Shepherd of the sheep will lead you in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. But on the above point, not even adult converts in the NT were required to meet the stringent pre-requisites you have set for baptism.

Matthew,

Good point. Your comment reminded me of the "household" baptisms in Acts. It seems to me that these households didn't have much time in which to display much fruit of any kind.
 
I trust the great Shepherd of the sheep will lead you in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. But on the above point, not even adult converts in the NT were required to meet the stringent pre-requisites you have set for baptism.

I agree with brother Matthew. The model is to believe and be baptized. Delaying baptism, even if done with good intentions, is not biblical.
 
Great article Richard, my fellow Brit. I agree with you that true seed of Abraham is Christ and the elected in Him. I love Covenant Theology and I really tried to give the paedo position as much study as possible, but I found myself increasingly more convinced of the credo position. Thank God for our early reformed forefathers and their development of Covenant Theology, but I believe that we have in God providence a rectifying the paedo error in the LBF, but at same time maintaining the Covenantal hermeneutic.

I’ll be praying for you to find a Reformed Baptist church Richard, there’s got one somewhere Cheshire :)

God bless Jonathan
 
Last edited:
I trust the great Shepherd of the sheep will lead you in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. But on the above point, not even adult converts in the NT were required to meet the stringent pre-requisites you have set for baptism.

Matthew, what is the English translation of your Latin motto?
 
Matthew, what is the English translation of your Latin motto?

It is the Latin version of "He must increase," etc. As a Latin quotation it admits of some embellishment, e.g., "It is becoming for That (well known) One to thrive, but for me to be diminished." May the Lord hasten it in His time!
 
Richard, I went down a similar path as you. As I have stated before on the PB, I earnestly desired to be a WCF Reformed Prsebyterian but when it came down to it I was not complelled by the paedo arguments. This is for similar reasons as yourself.

I think it is always good advice to seek godly counsel. However, I do not agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion on PB that this is a huge deal. If I were not pastoring a church, I would have no problem attending a good Presbyterian church. (Non-PCUSA, of course) I would have no problem with my pastor baptising infants because I believe that the Presbyterians have very good reasons for doing so. I rejoice that my Presbyterian brothers and sisters go to the Word of God as their only rule for faith and practice! Thank God for the Presbyterians! Where would we be in America without them?

But if I am going to pastor or lead a church, then that church is going to have to be baptist because I could never baptize an infant myself. At some point, after much prayer and study, a young man such as yourself who has any calling to lead will have to make a decision about paedo/credo. You could literally spend the rest of your life studying the arguments of others to the exclusion of serving Him with your gifts. At some point all of us have to trust the Holy Spirit and make a decision. :judge:

I appreciate your honesty and your courage for posting your position. I pray that the Lord is preparing you for service in His Kingdom as a leader, because as the Lord knows, we need them in this world. Baptist or Presbyterian it makes no difference to me! Lord of the Harvest, send labourers! :pilgrim:

I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile paedobaptism with Scripture. I had several discussions with my pastor regarding the subject at the time and while he held with infant baptism pastor was very understanding of my concerns and questions. I remember him telling me that there were a fair number of credobaptist members within the Presbyterian denomination, that I wasn't the only one who believed that way.

When I encountered the Reformed Baptists as an adult it was like coming home - the Reformed doctrines I'd learned and loved as a youth plus credobaptism.
 
Good points Paul. You've reiterated these very points before.

2. We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.

I think the conclusion of the matter demonstrates, yet again, that the argument for credo-baptism from this direction is misplaced. Again, election is not the test used by Baptists to baptize - profession is.

As pointed out by other Baptists, you've now also created a bar for baptism for professors. Since the Church is looking for assurance of election to keep the sacrament from the reprobate then mere profession isn't good enough. You really need to go much further and put the person in a probationary status to assure yourself that his is not a faith of the character of the seed that falls on the path or among weeds. This is why some Particular Baptists insist on extremely long periods of observation and study before they'll baptize an individual. What, precisely, is the Scriptural bar for how elect a person must seem before the Sacrament is to be applied to him or her?

If you state that a mere profession is sufficient then the Parable of the Sower undermines the confidence you are placing in profession as a sign of election. If you state that profession and a probationary status is necessary then you are adding to the Scriptures that speak of (and evidence) immediate baptism of believers.

My suggestion to you as a new credo-baptist is my suggestion to all of them: abandon the argument for credo-baptism on the basis of a probability calculus to ensure election. For that matter, election has little bearing upon the issue of who ought to be baptized. That baptists continue to see the nature of the Covenant (as they see it) to bear upon the recipients of baptism is a perplexing one to me.
 
I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile paedobaptism with Scripture.

I'm not picking on anyone, but, its interesting to me that no one ever says, "I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile Covenant Theology with Scripture." That would take too much work, but in reality, that is where the answer to all this acutally lies. Its not in baptism.
 
...election has little bearing upon the issue of who ought to be baptized.

Rich - we are in agreement. None of us know with certainty who is elect. The best of us are able to be fooled. Credo's believe that baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith. Not a decision card prayer, but faith. I expect we would agree that is the model for adult conversions. If we could agree on that we can agree to disagree on our other baptismal differences.
 
I'm not picking on anyone, but, its interesting to me that no one ever says, "I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile Covenant Theology with Scripture." That would take too much work, but in reality, that is where the answer to all this acutally lies. Its not in baptism.

Matt - I'll give you that. I studied Covenant Theology. I even ordered and read your book (shamless plug!). I had to come to grips with the fact that I am not a Covenant Theologian according to the strict definition you lay out. I'm not a dispensationalist either, but we'll save that for another thread.

The issue of baptism's covenantal aspect cannot be removed from Covenant Theology. In my humble opinion it is a contingent aspect, not the sole pillar.
 
I'll add on to that saying that 75% of Americans call themselves 'Christians'. Therefore, they should all be baptized due to their profession of faith.
 
Covenant Theology and Baptism

Hay:

To all the Baptists out there - a question:

When the Bible tells us that a person is holy should we baptize that person or not?

The word hagia (holy) is also translated "saint" do the saints get baptized?

Thanks, in advance, for the answer,

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 
Bill,

No doubt you *believe* that baptism should be administered upon a credible profession of faith, but where's the *argument.*

The conclusion: Therefore, only those who profess should be baptised.

What's your premise? Is it, "All who professed in the NT were baptised?"

That doesn't get you to your conclusion.

Is your premise, "A profession of faith is a more likely indicator of election?"

Where's the probability calculus? Actually, I'd think it low. What is the probability that the 2.4 (or so) billion people who profess faith in Jesus Christ are elect/saved? How many? I'd say it's around .4 or .5 (could be lower, sadly). But, you may say it is too hard to judge, and hence the probability is inscrutible. That is, we should remain agnostic about whether profession is high indicator of election.

Why is "being born to Christian parents" not just as high as "a profession of faith?" This is at least as high if the baptist grants that God works in families and that it is "a great blessing to be born in a Christian home." Even higher given what Scripture says, EZ. 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Now, I have no problems with professions putting people in covenant with God, and hence receiving the sign, but the baptist must now let non-elect into the covenant. If the probability calculus cannot be given, this is the other option.

But from here you might as well be paedo. You may still say, though, that even though non-elect are in the covenant, one should still profess to get the sign. And here we come full circle. What is the argument for this? The falacious: "All those who professed were baptised, therefore, only those who profess should be baptised?"

I think you have a defeater for your beliefs if you don;t assume that non-elect are in the covenant, from there, though, the argument cannot be made for professors alone, and then couple that with positive arguments for the continued inclusion of our children, and the baptist position looks pretty bleek.

Paul - you're missing the point of my post to Rich. I was just looking for common ground, not a debate. I don't trivialize the differences between us (paedo vs. credo). How many threads are in archive that have expounded, ad nauseum, on this topic? I didn't gloat over Richard's OP. My attitude is not one of, "Aha! A paedo convert!" I would rather Richard's new found credo position be used of God to strengthen his faith and make him more like Christ. I pray it never becomes cause to bludgeon another saint over the head with whom he disagrees. May that be said of all of us.
 
Hay:

To all the Baptists out there - a question:

When the Bible tells us that a person is holy should we baptize that person or not?

The word hagia (holy) is also translated "saint" do the saints get baptized?

Thanks, in advance, for the answer,

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Acts 8:36-38 36 And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 37 And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him.

I sometimes think the TR paedo's don't care too much for verse 37. The Ethiopian Eunuch believed and was baptized. He didn't believe and go through a new members course. He didn't believe and have to wait one year to prove his faith. He believed and was baptized.

This passage is not an argument against paedo baptism, it is an argument for the baptism of professing believers. And let me intercept a question some may toss out. Wasn't Andrew and Apostle? Wouldn't he have known with certainty that the Ethiopian was saved? No. Verse 37 indicates he did not know for certain. Additionally, how can anyone know the condition of the heart? We can only measure evidences.

As far as those who are considered holy, they are part of the church and should be baptized.
 
Wow, what an over emotional reaction.

Sorry for trying to press you on your points in a forum for "debate."

I pray that Christians will be able to defend and debate their position, be able to take criticism, and not call it "bludgeoning."

There were no ad hominems in my post. No sarcasm. No personal attacks of any kind. I think it's high time the baptists realize why they complain about my posts here.

Paul - take a step back and draw a deep breath. Please. I have no problem with debate. I also wasn't accusing you of bludgeoning (although I wondered whether you would take it that way). I made a very simple reply to Rich and you turned into cause for debate. I thought that was a reach. As far as complaining about your posts? I don't recall ever responding to any of your posts since my time here. At worse I am ambivalent. I tend not to frequent the baptism boards very often. Forgive me for being simplistic, but they are nothing more than preaching to the choir (In my humble opinion). They only serve to raise blood pressure.
 
Paul;

With the NT example, OT prophecy speaking of a better covenant and NT texts speaking of the greater blessings of this greater covenant it appears that baptists are not off their rocker to try to follow the clear examples given of baptizing a professor upon their profession.

How is it a "greater blessing" to hear that children, who were part of the visible Church for thousands of years, have been kicked out?

And as far as "examples" go, shouldn't we interpret the narrative by the didactic? I know this issue comes up all the time but it's still one of the most bothersome ones for me when baptism is being discussed. Phillip telling the Ethiopian eunuch that he can be baptized if he believes is not didactic teaching. That sort of passage isn't intended to teach us about the nature or mode of baptism. And then the whole thing gets messy when we read about household baptisms because the baptist has already decided, because of one set of "examples," that only those who profess faith can be baptized, then applies this presupposition to other "examples" telling of the baptisms of people for whom there is no evidence of faith. It doesn't seem right to just choose one of many "examples," derive didactic teaching from it that isn't there, and then apply that to other "examples" which, on their own and apart from presuppositions, could go the other way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top